Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Greg,I want to continue to examine your "spread the wealth is good for the nation" hypothesis. The "evidence" you have put forward that I'm aware of is based on correlations of some sort of index that supposedly quantify the distribution of wealth in a nation to allow comparisons. How are these numbers developed?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Regarding income distribution measurements. This from Greg's reference to the Wiki....

A Gini coefficient is a controversial measure of income inequality. Not only does its value depend on income inequality within a country, its value depends on other factors, such as the demographic structure. Countries with an aging population, or with a baby boom, experience increasing pre-tax Gini coefficient even if real income distribution for working adults remain constant. Scholars have devised over a dozen methods to calculate Gini, each of which gives a different value.-------------------------------------As I suspected it is a difficult metric to evaluate. Finally, if by some method it is determined exactly, what does the number mean in terms of human societies? If Joe has $100 and Bill has only $1, how much should a society take from Joe and give to Bill?

I walk down the street quite often with more than $100 cash in my pocket. I encounter people every day that hold up signs asking for financial help. I have no doubt that the majority of them could use a donation from me. I generally give them nothing, but when I do "go over the cliff" I give them $20. I don't like to be in either situation though. I am embarrassed for them and ashamed for my country that this goes on in America.

I remember when I was was a young man going into Mexico and other poor countries with kids and poor people begging for money. I was thankful America was not in such a state. Now it is just so that we are, but yet today we are multiples more richer then we were then. What is going on?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The GINI measurement is a dream for liberals because it measures the US as being near the bottom of the list. But there's a reason. They are using it to measure incomes only. And these incomes include money income only and don't subtract taxes, excludes welfare payments including medicare, medicaid, public housing, etc. It also excludes fringe benefits provided by the employer such as housing, retirement funds, health insurance.

A couple of points, lower income households are usually families with a single parent and only one income. Higher income households usually include a married couple with two incomes. As older citizens retire, their incomes decline, but they may still have substantial assets even though their yearly income is less.

There are other ways to measure equality in our country including consumption. This measurement shows that our country is far more equal than the GINI based on income would indicate.

In a study of wealth by nations, the most recent results showed that the median disposal income in the US is 73% higher than Sweden.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Sorry about the delay (you know my typical custom regarding this forum and weekends, I’m sure). In response to your posts from last week, if you say you are a “rabid” supporter of free market forces in ALL aspects of society, then I will take you at your word. From previous posts, I had gathered differently, but I know how annoying it is to have someone tell you that you don’t mean what you say you mean. So that brings that debate to a close ;)

Now, I still have a point of contention to address with you. You insist that all systems operate in cycles, or at least that systems like team and social performance operate in cycles. I disagree. Interestingly enough, I actually had a conversation about patterns and systems with my grandfather this past weekend. He—two decades your senior, by the way—spoke of an interesting book he was tackling for the second time in thirty years. The central conceit was that all variables in the world operate like a pendulum suspended inside a wave pattern; the pendulum, a closed system with ups and downs, transits along a wave that interacts with other waves at various times in history. This model makes more sense to me than the idea that all things operate in a cyclical fashion, because (among other reasons) cycles ultimately have limitations that waves do not. This “wave theory” is also more accessible for fox-type thinkers like me, for whom it makes more sense to consider the consequences of synchronizing various waves together at a given time than try and fit everything into a grand cycle. It’s not about whether one of us can “handle more than one causal relationship at a time”, as you rather arrogantly suggest, but instead how we choose to analyze those relationships.

If you believe Christianity was important to the unique success of the West, but you aren’t yet sure how, why have you stated numerous times that the Protestant work ethic and emphasis on individuality allowed the West to succeed where other systems had failed? That doesn’t sound undecided to me. In any case, I’m interested in dissecting that thesis—particularly the claim, integral to its viability, that this crucial work ethic and emphasis on individuality were unique to Protestantism.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach, Cycles, pendulums, waves, same thing. They are all regulated by feedback and that is what makes them behave that way. Note also that trial and error is also implicit in feedback. That suggests that perfect knowledge, or absolute determinism are impossible. (Interestingly, there is one historian I like that uses waves instead of cycles to refer to very long term pendulum effects, in the order of hundreds of years.)

On Protestantism, let me collect my thoughts because they are curently very spread out. But let me say right of that I am not arguing that the work ethic and individualism were "unique" to Protestantism (I wish you wouldn't use absolutes like that, they're too distracting). Christianity for one also emphasizes both but Protestantism took them to a new level including on HOW to make them work, and then there are many other systems I don't know. But also note that it is not just about properties; when I speak of particularly Calvinism and Presbyterianism, Ian also speaking of governance STRUCTURE. In fact, structure wise they are quite close to liberalism, aren't they? :)

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Ah, but remember—as Nancy never hesitates to remind us—Christian doctrine isn’t supposed to concern earthly laws. Are we discussing the effects of Christian doctrine that occur independent of doctrine, and yet can be attributed to it?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"But let me say right of that I am not arguing that the work ethic and individualism were "unique" to Protestantism

I would like someone to explain where an essentially apocalyptic and communal religion became individualistic. Secondarlly where in the world are the passages in the New Testament, the parables of Jesus, the pronouncements of Paul that talk to a "work ethic" of any kind. I think I have ask this question before and got some quotes from Timothy or something. The New Testament was mostly dedicated to th life of Christ , morality teaching of Christ, and generral moral behavior. And maybe I'm just dense (I'm sure I'll get seconded on that one) but I cannot recall a single passage that says "God wants you to work hard for the money".

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I didn't see anything in Xavier's post about earthly laws, but about Christian teaching. I suggested before that you look up the Great Awakening that occurred in this country before the Revolutionary War that had profound effects on the colonists. I hope you'll do that. "Although the Great Awakening was a reaction against the Enlightenment, it was also a long term cause of the Revolution. Before, ministers represented an upper class of sorts. Awakening ministers were not always ordained, breaking down respect for betters. The new faiths that emerged were much more democratic in their approach. The overall message was one of greater equality. The Great Awakening was also a "national" occurrence. It was the first major event that all the colonies could share, helping to break down differences between them. There was no such episode in England, further highlighting variances between Americans and their cousins across the sea. Indeed this religious upheaval had marked political consequences."

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Christianity is about the individual putting his faith in Christ for the forgiveness of sins. Without that step by the individual, he does not become a part of the community. In the community, each individual has his function, explained as the body (of Christ) having many parts. Each part is just as important to every other part, even though his gift may be different. We are all to work hard in whatever capacity Christ has put us in.

"I have not coveted anyone's silver or gold or clothing. You yourselves know that these hands of mine have supplied my own needs and the needs of my companions. In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'" Acts 20:33-35

"He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need." Ephesians 4:28

"Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men," Colossians 3:23

"Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders and so that you will not be dependent on anybody." 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12

"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: 'If a man will not work, he shall not eat.' We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right." 2 Thessalonians 3:7-13

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I’ll admit, while Oliver Stone will probably never win my full trust, his series did pique my interest in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. I did some digging over the weekend, and it looks like the main points of his analysis line up pretty well.

The Soviet campaign against Japan in Manchuria was absolutely devastating; the Japanese completely misread the Soviet strategy and were brutally overwhelmed as a result. Meanwhile, the U.S. had dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. Shortly thereafter, the Japanese surrendered. The question is, did the threat of Soviet invasion or the specter of atomic obliteration (or both, or even NEITHER) inspire the Japanese to do the culturally unthinkable and surrender?

Enter Colonel Curtis LeMay, United States Air Force. This is a man who Robert McNamara described as “the finest combat commander of any service I came across in war.” However, McNamara also noted that “he was extraordinarily belligerent, many thought brutal.” LeMay conducted a firebombing campaign on Japanese civilian population centers that took nearly as many lives as the bombing of Hiroshima; the larger U.S. strategic bombing campaign against Japan ended up claiming about 500,000 lives. LeMay and the Air Force knew exactly what they were doing; they dropped leaflets on Japanese cities reading, “Unfortunately, bombs have no eyes. So, in accordance with America's humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives." LeMay later said, “Killing Japanese didn't bother me very much at that time... I suppose if I had lost the war, I would have been tried as a war criminal.”

Finally, and perhaps most tellingly, the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, July 1946 Edition, concluded that “Twenty-nine percent of the survivors interrogated indicated that after the atomic bomb was dropped they were convinced that victory for Japan was impossible. Twenty-four percent stated that because of the bomb they felt personally unable to carry on with the war. Some 40 percent testified to various degrees of defeatism. A greater number (24 percent) expressed themselves as being impressed with the power and scientific skill which underlay the discovery and production of the atomic bomb than expressed anger at its use (20 percent). In many instances, the reaction was one of resignation. The effect of the atomic bomb on the confidence of the Japanese civilian population outside the two cities was more restricted.”Additionally, the report states that “[e]arly in May 1945, the Supreme War Direction Council began active discussion of ways and means to end the war, and talks were initiated with Soviet Russia seeking her intercession as mediator… Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered EVEN IF the atomic bombs had NOT [my emphasis] been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

So, while Stone was possibly off-base about the primacy of the threat of Soviet invasion on Japan’s decision to surrender, the evidence suggests that he is correct with regards to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of the darker parts of our past, I think that one truly resonates the most.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach, you are right about being skeptical about Oliver Stone. He has an inconsistent record. His endorsement of shaky conspiracies concerning JFK was probably his low point. I have not seen his latest so I will not comment on that one. However, as a Vietnam combat vet I can testify as to the accuracy of his film "Platoon", That movie is the only one i have seen that accurately portrays our Vietnam war. The only problem with it was he had to compress an entire year tour of duty to about 2 hours which is very hard to do without losing something. However, he was scrupulous in his rendering of the most minute detail. it was uncanny for me to watch since it mirrored much of my personal experience. But Stone can be led to flights of fancy so he is not always reliable. i do, however, look forward to seeing his HBO special.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

It's on showtime and it is airing every Monda night. I commented before about his problem in the JFK fiasco. However, his points on the bomb were wll documented and he was no fan of Truman. I had no idea that Henry Wallace (FDR's VP before Truman) was as progressive as he was and it is clear that he drove the southern democrats crazy. Had Wallace become President , the Civil Rights battle might have been accelerated. Who know's. You can read my points on the A-Bomb segment a couple of pages back. I think the shortchanging that the Soviets got for their role in WWII, the Japanese internment camps, and the use of the A-Bomb as an accelerant of the Arms race are all underplayed if not omitted points of U.S. History. It's why I am alarmed at right wing efforts to reshape even known history to fit a narrative that softens the impact of slavery and deemphasizes the Enlightenment. It is easy for the Keith's of the world to demonize the Soviet Union as an atheistic regime that butchered millions of its own people. But he conveniently forgets that those same atheists were the Eastern front and that they paid a greater price than any constituent group to defeat the Nazi's. So when do we taint 'em and when do we saint em?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I had noticed this game being played here. The Soviets were evil atheists, we’re told; yes, they played the biggest role in defeating the Nazis (also evil atheists), but then they starved and imprisoned millions of people in conquered satellite nations. Meanwhile, we goodly Christians may have incinerated millions of noncombatants in our efforts to defeat the Nazis and Japan, but we were fighting against evil, so it’s okay. The Soviets may have been on the good side when they were fighting the Nazis and Japan, but after that conflict ended and the “evil” part of the good versus evil paradigm momentarily disappeared, someone else had to be dropped into the role of “evil” so the paradigm could continue. In the absence of a presumably “more” evil Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany, the Soviets were the next best option.

None of this is an endorsement of the economic system, values, actions, or general morality of the late Soviet Union, by the way (if anyone tries to pin that one on me, you are either new here or possibly never learned to read). It’s just an observation about perspective.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach - I don't see how the Soviet invasion of Japan was any more threatening to the Japanese islands than the existing US action in the Pacific. Most of the Japanese troops (and aircraft) had already withdrawn from Manchuria before the invasion; the attack did not leave the islands defenseless. The Soviets got what they were after - influence in China. (The Soviet troops also went on a 3 day looting and rape spree which did not endear them to the Maoists.) The invasion was bold and successful as a land grab, but it was hardly "checkmate" against the Japanese.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

First you have to understand the enmity between the two country. Russian had been embarrassed by the Japanese back in 1905. Then there was not only the raping and pillaging they did in Manchuria but even the more extensive raping and pillaging they did in Germany. The Japanese believed that it would be more reasonable to negotiate with the United States rather than potentitally having to negotiate with Stalin.

The other point is that Japan had seen many of its cities firebombed by Curtis Lemay. Though the power of the A-Bomb was evident, the results were much the same. In fact the Japanese lost more civilians from these attacks than from the A-Bombs. Also the lingering effects of radiation poisoning were not well known by the Japanese.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Eric Hoffer quotes from The True Believer, on the nature of mass movements and doctrines:

"Thus the effectiveness of a doctrine should not be judged by its profundity, sublimity or the validity of the truths it embodies, but by how thoroughly it insulates the individual from his self and the world as it is. What Pascal said of an effective religion is true of any effective doctrine; It must be 'contrary to nature, to common sense and to pleasure.'”

"The effectiveness of a doctrine does not come from its meaning but from its certitude. No doctrine however profound and sublime will be effective unless it is presented as the embodiment of the one and only truth…If a doctrine is not unintelligible, it has to be vague; and if neither unintelligible nor vague, it has to be unverifiable. One has to get to heaven or the distant future to determine the truth of an effective doctrine."

"To be in possession of an absolute truth is to have a net of familiarity spread over the whole of eternity. There are no surprises and no unknowns. All question have already been answered, all decisions made, all eventualities foreseen. The true believer is without wonder and hesitation. 'Who knows Jesus knows the reason of all things.' The true doctrine is a master key to all the world's problems. With it the world can be taken apart and put together."

“[Mass movements] depict an autonomous, self-sufficient existence not only as barren and meaningless but also as depraved and evil. Man on his own is a helpless, miserable and sinful creature. His only salvation is in rejecting his self and in finding a new life in the bosom of a holy corporate body—be it a church, a nation or a party.”

"The impression somehow prevails that the true believer, particularly the religious individual, is a humble person. The truth is that the surrendering and humbling of the self breed pride and arrogance. The true believer is apt to see himself as one of the chosen, the salt of the earth, a prince disguised in meekness, who is destined to inherit this earth and the kingdom of heaven, too. He who is not of his faith is evil; he who will not listen shall perish.”

Hoffer also mentions an interesting quote from Martin Luther, the father of Protestantism: “’Thou shalt honor thy father and thy mother.’From this Commandment we learn that after the excellent works of the first three Commandments there are no better works than to obey and serve all those who are set over us as superiors. For this reason also disobedience is a greater sin than murder, unchastity, theft and dishonesty, and all that these may include.”

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Zach, I read "The True Believer' as an undergraduate and it had a profound effect on me. It is simply one of those timeless books that never loses its relevance because he has nailed a type of human behavior.

You can practically plug in all kinds of mass movements both old and new, communism, fascism, religion (all kinds), the tea party, etc. If you change a few nouns they all practically sound the same at their most fundamental level. Sure, there are cultural differences but communism in Russian is basically the same as communism in Spanish, for example. And saying this will aggravate all true believers.

True believers are those who do not allow facts of any kind to intrude on their beliefs. The more contemporary true believers have mastered the trick of accusing their critics of being just like them. Of course there are true believers who will always fight each other. Real communists and real fascists will never see eye to eye and will argue to the death. But our modern problems are not so simple or clear cut, but the true modern true believer will pretend that their critics are just as fanatical they are. I have been called a communist, a socialist, a Fabian socialist and even a child molester on this forum none of which are accurate but that doesn't stop the true believer. They believe so strongly that a critic - any critic - has to be true believer of a different sort, or barring that, a criminal. Sure cuts down on any chance for real debate.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Yes, and I think that Hoffer’s insights into the similar characteristics that place all mass movements into a “family” of sorts are quite accurate, no matter how uncomfortable some of the associations he makes may be to his typical American reader.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I don't think you seek real debate Pete. All I've seen from you is talking points mixed in with constant complaints about how rudely unnamed persons treat you, plus how ugly and vilely they talk about your beloved political favorites.

Greg and I are working on having a conversation concerning the government taking wealth from some and giving it to others. The question being, "By what legal and moral authority is this done?" I use a discussion to work out my own ideas as much or more so than attempting to persuade others. In this case no persuasion is involved, I simply want to know the thinking behind the action. So why don't you tell us your beliefs on the subject?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

ZachGlad your enjoying the book, I enjoyed the excerpts, though I disagree.Let me ask you, would you not be better served reading someone like Charles Krauthammer so that you could better understand someone like myself, and I read Hoffer so as to better understand someone like you?Are we trying to win or understand?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I have read Krauthammer and listened to him for years. He makes the occasional pithy point but he is hopelessly partisan (speaking of the need to win). Hoffer, on the other hand is non-partisan. Have you not noticed that Zach and i are on opposite ends of the political spectrum yet get alone fine and support each other? Seems like a model for the Nation to me. We don't feel the need to "win" against each other. The same cannot be said for many on this board.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

And one more thing about Zach and i. We can criticize each other without the other feeling insulted, put upon, diminished, or/and going ballistic. We also don't feel any need to retaliate or play silly one-upmanship games. That is what self-confidence and maturity looks like. Washington please take note.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Everett, the way to elicit debate is not to tell your potential debater that he/she is not interested in debate. That is precisely the turn-off i talk about.

About the fiscal discussion you are having with Greg, i am happy to put my two cents in. The government, based on laws that have been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions has the full authority to tax all citizens and commercial interests. The only question is how to do it. There are economic and moral issues at stake, and people will differ on what to emphasize and what the best way to tax should be.

There is plenty of room for diversity of opinion, but making grandiloquent statements like "income distribution" is not productive in my opinion. I don't believe the government should be in the business of re-distributing wealth, but rather should be seeking what level of taxation is appropriate at various income levels.

I also believe that taxation should not be seen as confiscation of wealth but rather what people's contribution should be to make the government work for all of us. We all have different priorities so it is inevitable that we will disagree on what the various levels should be. Should I pay 33% or 35% of my income as my contribution? I don't know the answer to that. But i want some assurance that the calculations are made by people who are not tipping the scales in anybody's favor. The role of powerful interests with lots of money to burn makes me nervous because these decisions should be made based on people's ability to pay and the legitimate needs of the Nation. I believe in balanced budgets but we are a long way from that so it seems we need to progress incrementally and cautiously because anything drastic or precipitous could have a very negative impact on our economic well-being.

But these decisions should be made with the minimum of acrimony and the minimum of emotionalism. Making disparaging comments about people you disagree with are not useful or helpful. That, unfortunately is much of what is going on in our country and why i used the relationship Zach and i have as an example of how it is possible for people on opposite sides of the fence to get along and come to terms in a spirit of getting things done for the betterment of all of us.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

PeterYou say you read and listen to Krauthammer for years, he makes the occasional pithy points but he is too partisan.Partisan as opposed to what, your way of thinking, Zach's way of thinking, Hoffer's way of thinking?You do realize that I, as a Christian and conservative, could have made the very same comment about Hoffer, while singing the praises of Krauthammer.That was not the point.The point was to read opinions outside your personal point of view so as to better gauge people who hold those different opinions, as opposed to only reading the thoughts and opinions of people that already sing in your choir.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

James, this is where you went astray. Yes, the constitution gives you the right to say anything you like. You can say that pigs can fly.

But alas no, As a human being you cannot say that Hoffer is a partisan because he was not. You can say that Zach is a Libertarian and i am a Progressive and you would be correct.

You see, there are facts and then there is fiction and it is important to kept those separate. I read Hoffer when I was 19 and was prepared not to agree with him. I don't know about Zach but i bet that Hoffer doesn't sing in his choir either. And to make things even more complex, neither i nor Zach sing in each other's choir. We learn from each other because we don't have a chip on our shoulder. We even argue, but we don't insult each other. We don't accuse each other of acting in bad faith. I don't have to agree with someone to appreciate his or her point of view.

My problem with Krauthammer is that he is precisely the kind of person that seems to not wish to learn from anybody. He knows it all, and i don't have much patience with know-it-alls. It has nothing to do with his point of view. He is way smarter and knowledgeable than Limbaugh. I will give you that. But when push comes to shove he sings in the same choir with the master bloviator himself as you put it.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

PeterYou may not think so, but you are a partisan, Zach is a partisan, Hoffer is a partisan.It is beginning to become clear that you misunderstand the meaning of the word.How do you say he is not? I know little about the man, but if he, you or anyone else adheres to and argues based on a political, religious (or lack there of), or personal belief system, you are a partisan. If you argue a cause, right, or course of action based on what you believe, you are a partisan. My disagreeing based on my points of view makes me a partisan.But just because I am doesn't mean your not.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

you still don't get it, James. Not everyone is a partisan. Zach and i are partisans. Hoffer is not. His whole book is about debunking partisanship in its every form. This is what happens when you apply your "logic" to everybody and everything. You are the definition of Hoffer's "True Believer". And if you read his book you would know that!!!!

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

PeterI decided it would be a good idea to learn something about Eric Hoffer before going any further with this partisan stuff. I don't know much but what little I learned leaves me with the impression that the man is a deep and independent thinker, and not someone who's opinions I would easily dismiss.He is however partisan, not to any established political party or political philosophy.The American Heritage dictionary defines partisan as a strong supporter of a party, cause, faction, person or idea.He is partisan to his own ideas and personal opinions based on his observations throughout his life. I'm not saying he is wrong, but when you write about it, lecture on it, and debate it, you are partisan.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"There are other ways to measure equality in our country including consumption. This measurement shows that our country is far more equal than the GINI based on income would indicate. "

Nancy,

GINI can be measure before and after transfer payments and both measurements are done. The question is does the measure have explanatory power. Given that virtually everyone agrees that the U.S. has deterioated with respect to income distribution as indicated by stagnant wages of middle class income, GINI does a pretty good job of capsulizing that.

And the issue is not where the country is but where is it going. GINI shows that the direction has been toward more income inequality. That is virtually indisputable. And while the statistic isn't perfect, it does offer a way to compare different countries income.

You say that U.S. median income is 73% higher than Sweden. But then you must get into the gross and net argument. If education, healthcare, and other needs are met, then net income in Sweden may be higher than it is here. And median income isn't perfect either. Bimodal distributions can give a median that appears good. However because modal groups are above and below the median, the idea that large segments of the population could be in dire straits could be hidden. Something like GINI would show that whereas median income would mask it . In general the mean, mode, and median must be in the same place for the population to be normal and therefore median means what you want it to mean.

While I doubt that Swedish incomes are on par with the U.S., because U.S.incomes are higher does not mean that they are fair. What if large segments of the U.S. population is being exploited to produce those outsized results? Should groups of people be satisfied with their split of the wealth which may be manifestly unfair because that split is larger than they would get if they were in another place.

Arguebly Afrcan Slaves may have been better off in U.S. as slaves than they would have been as free men in Africa. Besides the dehumanizing treatment and back breaking work, they were generally well taken care of . But because they got 3 squares a day justify not being compensated fairly for building the White House.Income inequality is not simlpy about diferences in income levels. It is about differences of earned shares of income. This is Stiglitz point. That the U.S. has installed a system where earned wealth is systematically bled off to a narrow group of essentially undeserving parties. GINI does a pretty good job of showing this. BTW the U.S is top 3rd or so. That's not the worst but it is getting there.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Statistics don't show that the middle class income has become stagnant. It shows that the higher wage earners have earned even more of an increase than the middle and lower income quintiles. This only tells us where the country has been, not where it's going. And it doesn't tell us the why. Without that, there's no way of telling how to make the lower and middle class increase their income at the rate higher income people do, nor if it's necessary.

You say it's a matter of fairness, but fairness based on what criteria? As Zack points out below, is it fair to take the fruit of a man's work from him and give it to someone else using the force of government through taxation? If one man has the drive to work hard and produce wealth, while another would rather work his 8 hours and spend more time with his kids, should the first man be penalized and have his wealth taken from him and given to the second man? There are far too many variables for us to truly understand this reality. And there is way more to a good life than simply yearly income.

The government can offer its citizens education, and it does. It can offer them equal opportunity in acquiring a job, and it does. It can set a minimum wage, and it does. But some people are simply going to work harder than others because it's in their nature. They shouldn't be penalized and hated for that.

The problem with unions is that they bargain for higher wages and out of sight benefits for their workers, not at the expense of the employer, but at the expense of the consumer. Grocery stores are a good example. I can buy the same products from the grocery section of a Walmart store at a price of 1/3 less than at the Safeway down the street. Here's the thing--my husband is not union and doesn't make a higher union wage, so why should I be fleeced at a grocery store that has to pay higher union wages? The point is that unions cause unequal pay and pricing, not equal. If everyone were union and everyone received the benefits union workers receive, then we would all pay much higher prices for everything and we would all be in the same place if there were no unions. Unions cause inequality in income and benefits, not equality.

Government, whether federal or state, governs working conditions including minimum wage, lunch breaks, maximum hours, overtime, safe working conditions, etc. We no longer need unions for that. All unions do at this point is cause income inequality by taking a bigger piece of the pie through thuggery and cause higher prices than would otherwise be warranted on non-union consumers.

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"For millions of working Americans, the phenomenon economists call "median wage stagnation" has become a way of life. For decades, their annual incomes have remained virtually the same, leaving many just a paycheck or two from the street.

Experts attribute the causes to various factors: the decline of organized labor, the erosion of the minimum wage, the shift from a manufacturing-based to a service-based economy, and the transformation to a more globalized economy. But a common thread is the choking of America's besieged middle class."

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Yes, my stats, taking into account inflation, are to 2008. Of course under Obama things have gotten worse for everyone. If you don't think Obama has a viable plan to increase unemployment and get businesses working again, then I guess lower incomes will continue. He has four years and wants to increase taxes in a slow economy, so we shall see.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Here’s the big problem that I see with the progressives’ effort to “redistribute wealth” in a “saner” way. When combined with the rest of the typical progressive agenda, you inevitably encounter a conflict of principles. You’ve spoken here of an aversion to the Republican effort to ban abortion in this country; in effect, you are protesting their attempts to legislate morality. The same might be said at the state level for those states that have chosen to ban gay marriage.

Any effort to redistribute wealth, no matter how “sane” it might be, will inevitably involve force. That is the crux of the matter; after all, if force was unnecessary, there would be no need to pursue redistribution in the first place. Now, we libertarians naturally dislike force. We often differentiate positive rights from negative rights, or in layman’s terms, the difference between what you are free from versus what you are entitled to. When you force someone to siphon off their wealth to other citizens, you are effectively legislating morality in the same vein that anti-abortionists seek to pursue.

In places like Sweden, programs like socialized healthcare work quite well because Sweden is so homogenous (I can go into detail on that if you disagree, but I suspect you won’t). The U.S. is a much different animal; we are larger, far more heterogeneous, and we play a much different role on the world stage. Legislating morality works much better on smaller, more localized groups of people. For example, consider the difference between banning gay marriage in southern Mississippi and banning gay marriage across the entire nation. One would cause very little discord, while the other would foment widespread outrage.

In Sweden, because of this homogeneity—you can also think of it as “unity of effort”—a lot less force is required to redistribute income in a “saner” way. Also, Sweden has recently (over the past decade) enacted sweeping deregulations of its private businesses, stimulating per capita growth that ranks seventh in the world.

Also consider this: Many people, including libertarians like myself, understand the moral injustice of one man making forty million dollars per year while his employee can barely pay rent. However, this injustice is not greater than the supreme moral injustice of forcing someone (ultimately at gunpoint) to surrender their property because an individual or the collective feels slighted at not owning similar assets. Our objective should be to inculcate moral awareness about the first injustice through increased education, rather than attempting a misguided effort to combat the first injustice with an even greater one.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I am not advocating a system where we add up all the income , do some long division and give everyone an equal share. The problem in U.S. was pretty much fixed with the advent of progressive income taxes and powerful labor unions. So what has happened? Labor unions were demonized so thorougly that most folks outside of the unions (including me) think that at best they are anachronistic. However Unions in Germany thrive as equal partners on the boards of the largest corporations.

The primary "redistributor" was the progressive income tax rate. Trillions of dollars which used to pay for roads and highways, fund college education, and fund scientific research have been returned to their "rightful" owner. There is evidence that government wasn't as efficient or effective as it could have been when it got the money. But it did do something. Now that these individuals are gettng the money, a lot less is being done. Our infrastructure is crumbling, we can't aford to do space anymore, and colleges are pricing large segments of the population out of the market because they receive less federal assistance.

This seems alright with our upper crust overlords who would gladly eskew education for trade schools and seem to generally prefer a more pliant work force. I'm accountant by trade. I teach the stuff. Should it be the sole arbiter of value? Can any accounting system determine the value of any one employees contribution? Increasingly the inadequacy of our measurement systems are being exploited to funnel wealth to the few. What is maddening is those that have little familiarity with these systems believe in there primacy.

I don't have a good way of determing how much each of us contributes to the pie. In the absence of that , a truly progressive tax system is a good start to restore equality of opportunity and sharing of benefit. Without it we march inexorably toward a second Gilded Age.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Very well, your solution is clear enough. But problems still abound. A progressive tax rate takes a higher percentage of your money as you earn a higher income. A higher income is the bedrock incentive to succeed in our society. Certainly people may invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in higher education to become doctors, engineers, stockbrokers, and lawyers for OTHER reasons, but I imagine we can both agree that higher earnings (and thus a better lifestyle) are a major impetus to succeed. A progressive tax rate, especially one that increases to meet the financial “needs” of a growing government, is essentially a rolling penalty against those who pursue higher incomes. Ultimately, though we seek to refine human nature, we must deal with how people are in the real world today. Very few people (Hoffer might argue no one) work harder for the same amount of compensation. Fewer still give us the innovations that change our world with just a pat on the back—or the wealth potential of a manager at Golden Corral (an exaggeration, but you get the point)—in mind.

Instead, why not invest in a culture that lets its private sector generate the production and success that it did during our most explosive years of economic growth? The government doesn’t need to worry about profit; this makes it a valuable tool, but also a dangerous liability. There are more efficient and effective ways of achieving our goals than feeding an ever-growing percentage of our paychecks into the maw of a massive bureaucracy that is deadlocked by partisanship more often than not. If we’re going to have faith in the individual regarding the responsible use of marijuana and premarital sex, we should consider trusting them with their wallets and businesses as well ;)

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Here's the problem. Argubly our most explosive growth occurred during the post world war II years where the marginal tax rate was a punitve 91% on incomes over $1 million. I am not proposing to go back to that. But these tax rates had an effect. They caused business owners to stay invested in their businesses rather than taking the money and running. And there is some evdence that they may of capped executive compensation because what's the use of paying a guy zillions of dollars when in effect you are paying the government.

The resulting reduction of tax rates have all of the wrong effects and none of the advertised good effects. There is no indication that lower capital gains rates have spurred investment as was advertised. Rather they have acted as a tax haven for guys like Mitt Romney.

And as for letting the markets police themselves, you are reaping the whirlwind with that one. Just this morning I heard that a Washington Senator is asking the Justice Department to investigate two west coast refineries whose "maintenance and repair" triggered price spikes in gasoline during a time when crude oil prices where dropping and inventories rising. The smoklng gun was emission analysis which indicate that same volumes of key gases where being emitted as when the refineries where in full production. So even though these refineries where "down" for repairs, they were apparently producing but not shipping gasoline.

Again, I'm not arguing for a return to insanely high rates of taxation. However, I see nothing wrong with tax rates on the really well-to-do to help pay for a defense that they insist we have. I also don't see anything wrong in all of us chipping in so that we all have modicum of healthcare. I would think that would be a species mandate. Finally , a few bucks for pure research, something the private sector will not do unless they see immediate dollar signs would be reasonable and a safety net for unemployed or otherwise disadvantaged is not unreasonable. We used to do this easily. The national debt was only 800 billion under Carter. So ask yourself, "what happened"?

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Regarding the church working with secular authorities to promote change, what do you make of Galveston circa 1925?

“The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1919, outlawed the manufacture, transportation, importation, and sale of alcoholic beverages and initiated the Prohibition era. The new law was widely unpopular, and bootlegging became rampant. Galveston's already lax social attitudes allowed this, as well as brothels and other illegal businesses, to blossom in the city. These institutions were so accepted that at one point, the city required health inspections for prostitutes to ensure the safety of their clients…Though other parts of Texas and the United States sometimes tolerated prostitution, gambling and violations of liquor laws (e.g. Dallas is said to have had 27 casinos and numerous brothels during World War II), these communities usually at least made a pretense of trying to enforce vice laws. In Galveston, vice was conducted openly; according to a 1993 Texas Monthly article by author Gary Cartwright, ‘Galveston's red-light district may have been the only one in the country that thrived with the blessings of both city hall and the Catholic church’…Galveston's attitudes toward race were at times unique in the region. The strict segregationalist attitudes prevalent in many parts of the U.S. were not always as stark in Galveston's society as in some other parts of Texas.”

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

More in the next page because I think it connects with my answer, or non-answer, to your trying to get me involved further up the page in a debate on doctrine.

For now it should suffice for me to say that I don't find it at all surprising that God and Caesar would find areas where they can cooperate, in God's case when he sees far too many inroads being made by secular forces into his domain, but more in the next page.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example. We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. "

Nancy,

So is it your contention that before Chrisitianity that the world was not generally aware of these attributes? Or more generally, the adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire infused this kind of thinking into the fabric of Roman life where it had not been. Man had built great Pyramids, constructed cities, roads, houses, etc. How is it that we did not know this? What about working for a living needed to be codified in Christianity so that its adherents were different from followers of pagan religions that had accomplished great feats using much the same philosophy. In fact back the it would seem that if you didn't have this kind of built in ethic, you ddin't stick around long.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Totally off the topic here, I wish one would get a second chance. I just reread my post immediately below and I realized the following is very poorly worded:

"Nancy's point about the Great Awakening that took place right before the Revolutionary War is smack on target as, in my interpretation, having been a sort of libertarian revolt against the central authority of the British and that of the various new forms of government proposed by the various writers of the Enlightenment."

What I meant is that the Revolutionary war was in a way the product of the Great Awakening. It was religious freedom, a motivation not unlike that of libertarians, that had made the settlers leave Britain and Europe in the first place and that was in some ways still being thwarted by the long arm of the British government—Nancy, this is where I need some help; I've read about the Great Awakening and this was my takeaway but I can’t really speak to it intelligently. Some of the kinds of government being proposed by the figures of the Enlightenment were no better. Thus in a way the Great Awakening was in fact an important force that led to the Revolutionary war and later when writing the Constitution its drafters were careful not to avoid the moral arena.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I might be mistaken here but the vast majority of Romans or Assyrians or Babylonians did not hold slaves as they could not afford them. A lot of them worked hand to mouth. Or is it your contention that they stood around idely while the upper class built these great civilizations with their slaves.

So the great "Protestant" work ethic is based on a few lines from the New Testament which were somehow not interpreted quite the same way by Catholics who somehow saw it differently. The difference in approach is stark between northern and southern Europe. So how did Catholics miss what was being told them while Protestants figured it out. Chrisitianity originated from the Catholic syncretic effort. Again how did they miss it and the Protestants picked it up. Could this have been more cultural than religious?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

GregBe clear, what you, with Zach's blessing, did was to assume that because you never new of, never heard of, and were never challenged with 2 Thessalonians 3: 6-12.It did not exist.Your challenge failed, now your acting as if you never made the challenge.You never contended that there may be a passage in the Bible that showed you could be wrong,You said you asked, got a reply about Timothy, and concluded there were none. Show some backbone. Admit your wrong.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

To be clear , there is a lot of stuff in the New Testament which is either regurgitated Old Testament stuff or regurgitated Greek philosophy stuff. However, I am looking for more than simply a statement that you should work for your food for by that time in man's history it should have been self evident. What about the New Testament statements to work would have constituted revolutionary changes in what was already known? Why would this have struck a chord with the people of that time when it was already pretty much known that is what you needed to do to survive. The Thessalonians passages look more like an admonition against church folks taking advantage of their position to sponge off of the faithful rather than a call to work. And I stated to Nancy, why were the northern Protestants so different in their approach to "work" than the southern Catholics. Inquiring minds would like to know.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

GregI can't believe I need to do this.On page 682 you say, and I quote."...Secondarlly (sic.) were in the world are the passages in the New Testament, the parables of Jesus, the pronouncements of Paul that talk to a "work ethic" of any kind..."It is exactly what you and Zach were so sure didn't exist, and further more you asked for a pronouncement from Paul about work ethic of any kind.Perhaps your knowledge of the Bible is secondary to your criticism of it, but the true title of "2 Thessalonians" is "The Second Epistle Of St. Paul To The Thessalonians".

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

You are not going to draw me into a debate about doctrine. I take it as it is and limit myself to try to understand it and its impact on behavior.

You conveniently ignored my equating Calvinism and Presbyterianism in particular among Protestant sects as a form of libertarianism.

Nancy's point about the Great Awakening that took place right before the Revolutionary War is smack on target as, in my interpretation, having been a sort of libertarian revolt against the central authority of the British and that of the various new forms of government proposed by the various writers of the Enlightenment.

In fact I would go further, but would like to hear Nancy’s opinion, and say that it was instrumental in limiting the scope and powers of the central government first proposed in the Constitution, and I say first proposed because I think that most Founders are turning in their graves horrified about how far some of the clauses of Article 8 of Section I, like for instance the Commerce Clause, have been pushed.

So why can’t Protestantism and more particularly some sects be seen as a form of libertarian self government in the spiritual, moral and ethical domains?

Re stuff like Galveston, I don’t know enough; it is beyond the scope of my inquiry and discussion here at this time. I am sure there has always been a gray area between what I describe above as in the realm of the spiritual, moral and ethical, and the realm of the secular or Caesar—and I am interested in the bigger picture, not little fights, which in this case I suspect you just want to use in your argument with the religious in this forum. That is why I am currently reading Berman on the development of the law in the West, both secular and religious. Among many others I am trying to understand how those gray areas were handled.

But gray areas there will always be. As a libertarian what you should fear more than Christianity is how the secular progressives are taking advantage of those gray areas to keep expanding the authority of Caesar, like with Prohibition and perhaps what you quoted regarding Galveston (btw, who were you quoting?). I worry very much and spend more time on it than you seem to do yourself.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

If we put the American Revolution in the back drop of Europe where there were classes of people who would remain in their social class no matter what they did, and the influence of Catholicism with its hierarchy where the leaders told the great masses what they were to do and how they were to do it, we can see what happened in the First Great Awakening. It was a Protestant religious revival, meaning evangelist were preaching the word of God to large audiences who were then committing their lives to Christ. It also taught at that time the equality of all men (and women). It taught that in God's kingdom there was no hierarchy or social class, but all were equal in Christ.

"According to Gary Nash in The Urban Crucible (1986), the First Great Awakening was a means by which the colonial Americans were able to challenge their “social betters”. The revival began by calling for a response from the heart and emphasized Christian ideals of love and fellowship."

Also, "The evangelical movement of 1740 helped in the development of democratic concepts. It created a demand for the segregation of church and state. It democratized religion by amending the balance of power between the minister and the congregation. It provided people with an “American” identity which was distinct from its European counterpart. Many historians believe that the religious background of the American people created a the mindset from which the ideology of the revolution grew." http://www.mapsofworld.com/usa/american-revolution/first-great-awakening.html

Benjamin Franklin became a big fan of George Whitefield, and evangelist at that time. I suspect Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were cursing under their breath at this point. But at that time Evangelicalism--the preaching of being born again through faith in Christ--was being accepted by an overwhelming majority of the American public.

"For in Jesus Christ there is neither male nor female, bond nor free; even you may be the children of God, if you believe in Jesus." ~George Whitefield

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Thanks Nancy. The reason I suggest that it was a movement akin to libertarians rebelling against a strong government is that I first read about awakenings in “Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform: An Essay on Religion and Social Change in America 1607-1977,” by William G. McLoughlin (Chicago, 1978). Notice that he starts in 1607. He actually identifies five awakenings, including one before the “First” that he titles “The Puritan Awakening and the Culture Core” which happened in Europe in the 17th century and led to the first migration to English speaking America.

In that first awakening the Puritans in effect rebelled against any form of government or religion that they saw as dictating to them, which included not only the British monarchy and government, but also the more hierarchical Catholic Church, of course, but also the Church of England, which under the then monarch was seen to be trying to take on hierarchical attributes like those of Catholicism that, in good libertarian style, the Puritans believed belonged to the people. Thus not only the migration of many to America, but even more significantly in terms of bloodshed was its important role in allowing and being used to fuel the English Civil War.

In a way I thus see the First Awakening, which McLoughlin dates as roughly between 1730 and 1760, as a Revival—note the title of McLoughlin’s book. “Revivals, Awakenings, and Reform”—of the ideals that first brought the Puritans to this continent.

On a broader note, since in the post to Zach here and in the prior page I also speak of the social versus the economic dimension, God versus Caesar, and a gray area between the two, note just from the subtitle of McLoughlin’s book the impact that historians like him attribute to religion decidedly having had on social change in America. I don’t really need McLoughlin to tell me that, but I suspect that many atheists and new style secular progressives shy away from important chunks of American history like this one just because they want to cleanse any possible religious influence from their views. Little do they know that a major part, if not the most important part, of the philosophy that moves, motivates and informs them is a Christian philosophy even if they avoid like the plague and disparage its religious side.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"I don’t really need McLoughlin to tell me that, but I suspect that many atheists and new style secular progressives shy away from important chunks of American history like this one just because they want to cleanse any possible religious influence from their views."

Xavier,

I agree completely. The sad part is that the students they teach these half truths to don't know any better and so have a very skewed view of America's founding. Who knows, religious revivals have happened in the past so may just happen again and help set up back on course.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

It is actually quite amazing, and as you say very sad, how much is held from us by many historians owing to their aversion to anything to do with religion. As you know, I often read the same history from many perspectives and it amazes me how much is omitted by some.

Another aspect that troubles me of much of the history we have is that almost always it is the history of the rulers and the upper classes near them. I try to read as much as I can find of any history that reaches down and attempts to see events through the eyes of the people.